Young Americans no longer alarmed by socialism

The two greatest fears among Americans during the 1930's, 40's and 50's were a nuclear war and the spread of socialism. These fears were often intertwined by the fact that the most powerful socialist country in Europe -- the U.S.S.R. -- had access to nuclear weapons and was actively working to spread socialism around the world.

In fact, it was this fear that leads to WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the War in Vietnam, and the Cold War. These were all efforts to prevent the spread of socialism, and prevent it from taking over America.

There are credible reasons for this fear, as socialism is the antithesis of capitalism, the American dream, and American exceptionalism. While capitalism encourages independent thinking and rewards hard work, socialism treats everyone equally regardless of how hard one works. Capitalism is the result of freedom and liberty, while socialism absconds freedom and liberty at the expense of the collective state.

And, despite what some of my liberal friends might say, progressive, liberal, socialism, and Communism are all essentially the same forms of government: they all redistribute wealth; they all take from the haves and give to the have-nots; they all take from the producers and give to the non-producers. And the government cannot create wealth; the state cannot create wealth. Only the private sector can create wealth.

Prior to the 1980s, children were taught during their earliest years of life, often at home and always at school, about how this country was founded and why this country was founded. They were taught that America protected natural rights, thereby allowing all people to dream and dream big, and to act upon those dreams. Those who worked hard were rewarded. This created an environment where even the poorest person could move up from poverty to wealth, and all it would take is a dream.

They were taught about how, before the United States existed, 99% of people lived under a totalitarian dictator like governments, where only the elites had an opportunity to dream big and act upon their dreams. These traditional governments were much like the socialistic governments of today, which include the various forms of European socialism and American progressivism/ liberalism.

These forms of government were feared back in the day. However, some recent polls show that as many as 85% of people 30 years of age and younger are no longer fearful of socialism. In fact, some even go as far to show that Americans under 30 no longer fear socialism at all, and sometimes even want socialism to come here to America.

For instance, exit polls in New England found that socialism earned 85% of the vote of those 30 and younger.  This is according to the Federalist.

The article notes: 

Millennials are simply not that alarmed by the idea of socialism. For instance, a national Reason-Rupe survey found that 53 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds view socialism favorably, compared to only a quarter of Americans over 55. A more recent January YouGov survey found that 43 percent of respondents younger than 30 viewed socialism favorably, compared to 32 percent thinking favorably of capitalism.  In fact, millennials are the only age cohort in which more are favorable toward socialism than unfavorable. Young people are also more comfortable with a political candidate who describes him- or herself as a socialist. A May 2015 YouGov national survey found that 37 percent of millennials reported being “comfortable” (29 percent) or “enthusiastic” (8 percent) with the prospects of a socialist candidate. Among those older than 45, only about half that agree. So why are millennials so much more favorable toward socialism compared to older Americans?

How could this be? One could probably argue that young people today are no longer taught about the founding of our country. This is probably because the left has succeeded in taking over what our kids are taught, a gift of the department of education and the teachers union. By this, they have succeeded in teaching kids that liberal ideas are good and capitalism is bad. Of course, they don't say it this way, but that's essentially what they do.

They have succeeded in convincing our youth that global warming is real and caused by them. This is how they are so accepting of regulations that essentially control what people make and what they sell. They have succeeded at convincing young kids that activist judges, those who liberally define the constitution and rule based on their opinions rather than the actual laws on the books, are good for America.

They have convinced Americans that a socialistic style healthcare system is good. And, imagine for a moment that liberals succeed at gaining control of education, healthcare, and global warming. If they succeed at all three, they control you and they control me. They control what we make, buy, and sell. They control what you learn. They control what you think. They control you.

That is socialism, my friends. It's akin to what the founding fathers ran away from, only it now has a happier face. Today it's called liberalism. Yesterday it was called progressivism. But, those of us who were educated prior to the 1980s, and those of us who are able to educate ourselves about the true history of the world, understand that all of the 'isms are simply daughters of fascism. 

What is crony capitalism?

When most people think of the term "crony capitalism" they think republicans. They think it's republican business owners who are for unregulated free market where they're free to rip off and screw any customer they want. But that's all a misconception. That's what people on the left want you to think so you continue to support their big government, anti-capitalist agenda. But that's not what crony capitalism is.

You see, let's look at the 1920s as good example. The 1920 was one of the greatest periods of economic expansion in the history of the United States. It was a time where the rich got richer, the middle class got richer, and the poor got richer. It was a period of time when the unemployment rate was 4%, and most economists consider that no unemployment, because there will always be people in between jobs. So 4% is no employment.

So you had the Roaring 20s. Then the stock market crashed and the Great Depression started. So here is when you had prograssives in America who have a big government agenda, and this was the perfect time for them to convince the world that capitalism was bad. So they came up with this scheme where they would do just that. They claimed that unfettered capitalism during the 1920s is what caused the Great Depression.

They said it was caused because there was no regulation on the free market, and so business owners, republicans, were free to rip anyone off. They claimed all the problems that resulted in the depression were caused by unfettered capitalism.  That's how the left defines capitalism, as crony. They see unfettered capitalism as crony capitalism. And that's not true at all.

So they used this new found fear of capitalism to push forth their big government agenda. The first president to play into this fear was FDR.

Today, people think of large companies like Walmart as a perfect example of unfettered capitalism. They see it owned by republicans, supported by republicans, and a perfect example of what is wrong with capitalism. But Walmart is not a perfect example of what is wrong with capitalism, it is a perfect example of what is wrong with crony capitalism.

So, what is crony capitalism?  It's when government gets in bed with big business, and for the benefit of both the company and big government. So, Obama, for instance, wants to get Obamacare passed. Okay, it's very unpopular with the people, so without help he never would get it passed.

Walmart is typically a conservative company, and they do not want to sign on to Obamacare. They do not want to support it. But then Obama convinces them to sign on to is. He adds provisions into Obamacare that work to the benefit of Walmart. So, basically, the government is up for sale. Companies like Walmart salivate at opportunities like this. So they buy the government.

So Walmart supports Obamacare. It even pays into it. It does so because it knows it can afford the added regulations. Its competitors cannot afford these regulations, especially small business competitors. So they go out of business and Walmart benefits because it can afford the regulations. It can take the hit. That, my friends, is what crony capitalism is. It's not unfettered capitalism.

Walmart is not unfettered capitalism; Walmart is crony capitalism. It's when government gets in bed with big business, or big business gets in bed with government. You see, Obama benefits because he gets his agenda passed, and Walmart benefits because they get rid of competition. The people who lose in this relationship are citizens, who now have to buy healthcare against their will, have to pay higher taxes to support it, must pay higher prices against their will.

That's crony capitalism. Walmart might be owned by republicans. It might also be owned by democrats. The politicians who get in bed with them could be republicans, but they could also be democrats. You see, there is corruption in both parties. That's exactly why the Trump movement got started.

Crony capitalism is what allows companies like Walmart to prosper. They do not prosper because they have a better product. They do not have more products. They do not offer better quality. They do not have all of the typical stuff that drives customers to them and away from competitors. They become the choice of consumers because their competitors couldn't afford the regulations, and so they closed their doors. So the Walmart's of the world become bigger by default; through capital cronyism.

Here's another way of putting it. In the old days, when company A was in the same business as company B, company A would try to beat company B with a better product and better customer service, lower prices, better retail op, etc. The two companies competed in the marketplace, and company with the best service, or the best prices, or whatever, would lead the marketplace.

Today, thanks to Obama, all company A has to do to beat company B is co-opt the private sector and join forces with Obama. This allows company A to control the market place simply supporting a large government program. This is appealing to a lot of company CEOs. And so now company A does not compete with company B directly. Company A competes with company B by aligning with government, rendering company B helpless.

That is corporate cronyism, or crony capitalism. It's corporate socialism. It's a stepping stone between capitalism and socialism.

General Electric is the same way. Costco is the same way also. Costco supports minimum wage increases. They can afford to pay more. But their competitors can't. There is no business that support a minimum wage increase, unless they are in bed with big government and they get something out of it in return, like fewer competitors. So, Walmart and Costco get in bed with Obama so they can get some breaks.

Crony capitalism is when big business get in bed with big government to get an agenda passed and to knock out competition. That is not what republicans want. It is not what conservatives want. It really is not what democrats want, but they know that in order to get their radical left wing agenda passed, it's what they have to do.

Of course the democrats get something else out of it that we often over look. Their goal is to create a socialistic government, a big government system where experts in Washington control the people and every decision they make, mainly because they know what's best for everyone. So, if they create these crony capitalist deals that drive away small companies. All that's left is large companies. So, when they want to take over industries, like healthcare, it's easier to take over a few large companies than many smaller ones.

I think this is one of the reasons Obamacare made it so easy for hospitals to merge. Sure you had some hospital mergers before Obamcacare. But Obama care made it so difficult for smaller hospitals to stay afloat, mainly due to too many regulations. The larger hospitals supported Obamacare because they knew it would drive away competition, or they could absorb competition. Not because they offered better services or a better product, but because their competitors couldn't afford the regulations.

So, now you have a few large hospital conglomerates. Think of it. The ultimate goal of democrats is to create a universal healthcare system. It's now set up nicely. It will be a lot easier to take over a few large hospitals than many smaller ones. You see, this isn't even corporate capitalism, it's crony socialism. It's socialism. It's a baby step on the way to socialism. It's establishing monopolies, something Teddy Roosevelt worked so hard to break up.

But democrats won't tell you that's the agenda. Democrats won't tell you what crony capitalism really is. They want you to think it's unfettered capitalism. That's how they operate. The greatest enemy of socialism is an educated republic. They don't want you to be educated. That's why they created the department of education and created a public school system where they decide what kids are taught.

That's why they created common core, thus plucking parental choice out of education. They don't want parents decide what kids learn, they want kids to learn only what they want. They want to raise good socialist kids, not founding father loving kids. .

Crony government companies win simply because of their crony relationship with Washington rather than standard business practices: Better product or better service.

Further Reading:

• Redstate: Big Business is afraid of conservatives -- and they should be
• Rush Limbaugh: The IRS and the new crony capitalism

Why socialism, liberalism and progressivism always fails

One of the biggests myths that liberals believe is that there's only so much money to go around. They believe that people who make lots of money do so at the expense of others. This explains why rich people are so often referred to as "greedy" and "selfish" and "materialistic" by the left.  And it's so not true.

Now, surely, in some cases it might be true.  But in most cases, just because someone is well off does not make them greedy.

This also explains why the left constantly barrages people who succeed.  They do not like it when companies make profits.  Instead, they believe any money over what is needed to make a living should be spread out among all the other people equally.

This explains why they want taxes for the rich and not for the middle class and poor.  They want to punish those who succeed by taking the money they worked so hard to earn and doling it out to the poor.  In other words, they believe they know how to spend other people's money better than they do.

Actually, liberals believe that, left to their own devices, that people who succeed are naturally greedy, selfish, and materialistic; that they will naturally put themselves before the state, And, they believe, this is wrong.

This is why they hate capitalism so much, because capitalistic societies create opportunities for the few to benefit off the many, or so they falsely believe.

A perfect example to help me make my point is Dan Price, CEO of Gravity Payments.  He read somewhere that $70,000 was an ideal salary.  If you earn this salary you can have a nice house and car and have plenty of money left over to live a good life.  There's no need to make more than that.

Here's a guy who made over a million a year.  He decided to give himself a huge pay cut to $70,000 a year, and he gave this same salary to all his workers.  In other words, he decided, as so many on the left do, that it's unfair that one person makes millions of dollars while all the people who are the workers make so much less.  So he redistributed the money among all who work for him.

Guess what?  This happened back in April.  Not even four months later he announced that it was an utter failure. He had people who worked for the company for many years, were very loyal to the company, and they were upset that people who were newly hired were making as much as they were. Some of them -- some of his best employees -- quit.  It was a devastating blow to his company.

When you dole out money equally you expect that every person will do an equal amount of work.  In the ideal world, this might happen.  But in the real world this is impossible.  In the real world you are always going to have people say: "I'm going to make $70,000 no matter what I do, so I'm not going to go out of my way to do anything."

Why did this system fail? Because it assumes that everyone is equal.  Dan Price assumed that if everyone else made the same money he did that they would have the same passion that he does.  He believed the liberal myth that equality would bring fairness and happiness.  And he was wrong.

The fallacy here is that if everyone was equal, if everyone made the same amount of money, that everyone would do the same amount of work, and everyone would be equally happy.  This is the euphoria liberals think they can create. This is the biggest myth of liberalism that exists out there.

Sure, in their ideal world everyone is equal.  But in the real world people know that no two people are alike.  We are all unique. We all have our own goals, desires, and ambitions.  Some of us naturally work harder than others.  Some of us are early to work every day, and others are late no matter how hard they try.

Not only that, contrary to what the left tries to force on us, no one wants to be the same as someone else. We all yearn to be individuals; we all yearn to be unique.  Surely I might want to be like my dad, and I might want to be like the CEO running my company, or I might like to emulate one of my better coworkers.  Still, I don't want to be considered the same as everyone else. We all want to be unique.  We all want to be missed when we are gone because no one else can do what we do.

That reminds me of a sign I saw in the nursing report room a while back: "No one notices what you do until you are gone."  This means that when you are no longer here, people realize how valuable you were.  All these years, for instance, they just assumed the storage room miraculously was stocked every day.  Now that you aren't around they see that it was you, all along, who stocked.

When my grandma passed away, the general consensus among us grandkids was that this was a woman who could never be replaced. If you are healthy psychologically, then you are special to the world in this way too. You cannot be replaced.  You are unique, You are an individual.  You don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of slackers, half-baked, half-caring people. You want to be thought of as the cream of the crop, and you can't be if everybody's making 70 grand.

Worded another way, if we all make the same income(a so called fair wage), and we all have the same healthcare, and we all have the same education, and we all have the same everything else, then we are nothing more than sheep.  We are herded by the great big Sheppard who lives in Washington D.C. who goes by the name of Uncle Sam.

The problem with this analogy is people are not sheep.  We all yearn to be unique We all yearn to be special. We all yearn to offer some special gift. We all offer a special gift. If everyone is the same, then we are no longer needed. To assume we are all the same is to assume we are all easily replaceable, and that goes against nature

It is for this reason that liberalism, progressivism, socialism, Lenonism, Marxism... always fails.

There are many people in this world that are so special that they will never be replaced.  This is human nature.  We are not the same, and cannot be treated the same. So any attempt to make us the same assumes that we all produce the same, and that's simply not true. It's human nature. To try to perfect human nature will always lead to chaos.

And that's exactly what happened at Gravity Payments after Dan Price decided to give everyone who worked for the company the same wage of $70,000.  Because there are so many different levels of talent and ability, the system set in place never had a chance. It was socialism pure and simple. Everyone was treated the same. Nobody was considered more important than anyone else. They are interchangeable. When one person retires or quits or dies, another can simply fit in to fill the empty pair of shoes, or so the

Marxist assumes.  Such a system is doomed to fail no matter how many times it is tried.Sure it might sound good and make you feel good, but it never works. It has never worked.

The main problem with socialism is best summed up by Rush Limbaugh:

The main policy or main flaw with socialism side from run out of somebody else's money at some point is that we're not the same and we are not equal. There is no such thing as fairness. Fairness is always arbitrary depending on who has the power to define it, and there certainly is no equality. There's equality of opportunity, equality of chance, equality before the law, but these people talk about equality in terms of outcomes, and there's no such thing.

You put a system of socialism in place where you have equality of outcome, and you're always gonna have some renegades, some entrepreneurs who are gonna say, "Screw this," and they're gonna bust out, and they're gonna do what they do, and they're not going to be shackled by silly rules like this. And then you have, on the other end of it, people who are gonna say, "I'm gonna get 70 grand a year, man, and I don't have to do anything special? I just have to show up?" and that's all they're gonna do. Because slackers are everywhere.

If you're not going to be compensated or rewarded for merit-based behavior, then there's no reason to be concerned about merit-based behavior. So that goes out the window, too.

Why did Dan Price's system fail? Because it was pure, unadulterated socialism. Call it liberalism or progressivism or whatever you want, it has failed every single time it has been tried. Yet because it smells good and sounds good, the best and brightest among us will continue to fall for it.

Further reading:

• Articulating Ideas: Idealism versus Realism
• Articulating Ideas: What is Fascism?
• Washington Times: Dan Price, Seattle CEO Who Set Company Minimum Wage at $70K, Now Struggles to Make Ends Meet
• Hot Air: CEO Who Raised Workers’ Minimum Pay to $70K Hits Predictable Problems
• National Review: It Turns Out That Equality Can Feel a Lot Like Unfairness
• Rush Limbaugh: CEO Who Made $70K His Company's Minimum Wage Admits It's a Disaster

The true story of Thanksgiving

There was no freedom of religion in the early 1600s. If you did not believe in the same religion that King James I wanted, and you worshiped God in the way you wanted instead of what King James wanted, you were treated as a common criminal. You were hunted down, put in prison, or even killed.

These individuals wanted to be left alone to worship the way they wanted, and in 1608 they moved out of their homeland of England to Holland. But there was much hardship in Holland too, so the Pilgrims decided to leave England for America. But they stopped back in England first to receive funding from the Virginia Company. Then in August of 1620, 102 Pilgrims set out for America in a ship called the Mayflower.

During the ride across the ocean much discussion ensued as to what form of government to create. While still on the Mayflower in 1620, the Mayflower Compact was signed, and one of the signers was William Bradford. The Pact said that all goods and services, and all land, would be owned by the mass community, and the profits would be doled out equally among the masses.

When they landed in November they found a land that was cold, shelter less, and not very welcoming. In fact, in that first harsh winter over half of the Pilgrims died. When Spring finally arrived, the Indians taught them how to build shelters and to plant corn, fish for cod, and skin beavers to be used as coats.

The fact that an Indian tribe, lead by Massosoit, was a blessing from God in itself, because without his blessing the other Indian tribes would have pulverised the Pilgrims. This was also a blessing because a pirate named black took advantage of his friendship and took many of his people.

They did better at this point, but things did not go as well as Bradford, the original governor of the community, had expected. He decided that while the Mayflower Pact sounded like a good idea, since no one owned anything, and there was no incentive to work more than the minimum, there were many crops that went unplanted, and much that wasn't taken care of, and productivity was very poor. People did whatever the minimum was needed of them, and then they quit. What the Pilgrims had created here was an early form of socialism.

By 1623 the harvest was so poor that starvation and death became a problem almost as bad as when the colonists first arrived. They had the know how and the potential for having good crops, but this wasn't happening.

Bradford realized this pact was not working. He wrote: "The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God." Yet he realized it did not work as expected.

Bradford decided to take an idea from the Bible. He gave every person a plot of land to take care of as their own. If they did well, they were able to keep part of the profits as an incentive to work hard. They were allowed to market and profit from what they sold. In effect, he turned loose the power of the marketplace. He created the worlds first capitalistic government.

The following harvest was abounding. It was not abounding because of help from the Indians, but because a socialistic government was replaced by a capitalistic one. On this, Bradford wrote: "This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."

The Pilgrims did so well that they set up stands where they exchanged goods and services with the Indians, and they used profits from this to pay back their debt in England. In fact, the colony started to do so well economically that many Pilgrims decided to migrate to the colonies. This was called the Great Puritan Migration.

For helping them come up with a new system that worked to produce the bountiful crops, they decided to have a roast to give thanks to the Lord. There were some Indians at this celebration, but not as many as we and are kids are taught in school.

Now the Pilgrims were also thankful for the Indians for helping them and even protecting them. Yet that was not the main Intent of that celebration. The main intent was to thank God for teaching them an effective government.

The history books tell us that the first Thanksgiving was celebrated to give thanks to the Indians for helping the Pilgrims survive after that first hard winter. Sure the crops were improved that second November, but there was no celebration. There was no celebration until socialism was quashed and a capitalistic government was formed and the economy of the colony prospered. This is what the colonists celebrated on that first Thanksgiving. The date was August 9th.

However, since William Bradford's original notes were lost for many years, the story of  Indians saving colonists and this being the reason for the first Thanksgiving became common. And when Thanksgiving was made a national holiday by Congress in George Washington's first year in office, November 26 was selected as the day. And even while Bradford's journals were discovered, this false date and the false story of the first Thanksgiving were not corrected.

The unfortunate result of this fallacy not being corrected is that the lessons of Bradford were not learned. Carl Marx, Stalin, Lennon, Hitler, Mussolini, all played with various forms of socialism, and none of them worked.  Even today, in both the Europe and the United States, forms of socialism continue to exist. Perhaps if the true story of Thanksgiving were known, the failures of the past would not be repeated over and over again.

Further reading:

• Smithsonian: What as on the menu at the first Thanksgiving?

What is social justice?

It seems we are forced to do a lot of things we don't want to do, and it's always in the name of "social justice." So what is social justice, and how does it effect us as individuals?

Well, to begin with, social justice is not about individuals, it is about society as a whole. To understand it, we first need a definition, so hear goes.

Social Justice:  Sacrificing personal or individual liberties and justice for the benefit of the whole of society.

Let me put it this way: Social Justice teaches the opposite of what the Bible teaches. The Bible, the Gospel, preaches rule of man or individual rights. It preaches individual choices and taking accountability for the individual choices we make. This is what lead up to capitalism, and is how Christianity has lead to a capitalistic system of government.

Social Justices is the opposite of this.  Social Justice teaches that, if you are better than someone else, then you have to have something taken from you to make you equal to everyone else.  If you are worse than everyone else, then you are given something that you did not earn to make you equal.

So, social justice is taking from those who have, giving to those who have not, in order so that all people are equal.  The problem with this is that if everyone is equal, there can be no rich and no poor.  If there are no rich, then there is nothing to shoot for.

In essence, everyone is poor.

Since everyone is taken care of regardless of effort, then no one makes an effort improve things.  The bottom line here is that everyone remains poor.  There is plenty of supply (such as food), but no one willing to pick it.  This is one of the reasons the former Soviet Union failed, because no one was willing to do any of the work.

Under the American version social justice (aptly called either progressivism or liberalism), if you earn more than "your fair share," your taxes are raised to make you equal.  If you make less than your fair share, social justice programs will help make you equal.  Social justice programs include welfare, social security, healthcare, and so forth.

They also include regulations to make sure you comply with the will of whatever modern fad is ongoing, such as regulations to prevent global warming. This is another excuse they use to raise your taxes, which is essentially what regulations are.

Yet since average working people are now poor, taxes are raised on the rich even higher so they continue to pay their fair share.  Yet they find ways to dodge taxes, or they themselves run out of money and become equal citizens.

Now, since there are fewer rich people, or (ideally) no rich people, this means that a euphoric world has been created where everyone is equal.  The aspect of this that so many on the left fail to understand is that if there are no rich people, than everyone is poor.  If everyone is equal, everyone is poor.

So, since there are no rich people, and the people are now all equally poor, there isn't enough money to sustain the system.  So it all comes tumbling down.

This is the fear of the people who oppose social justice.  It is the reason the Bible preaches individualism, because social justice fails every time.  In fact, Social Justice is only a happier term for socialism, liberalism, progressivism, and fascism.

The ideal goal of social justice is to create an ideal world, a euphoric world, where everyone works, everyone has a working wage, everyone has healthcare, everyone is taken care of in every way you can think of.  Yet it is never obtainable and never sustainable.  It is a system that fails every time it has been tried.

So, social justice is a system where those who have sacrifice what they earn for the benefit of the society as a whole.  But there is another aspect of social justice, and this is the sacrificing of individual justice for the good of the whole.  A quintessential example of this is the 2015 Baltimore Race Riots following the death of a black man in police custody.

In order to quell the riots, in order to generate peace, in order to create calm, Al Sharpton called for a Nationalization of the police force (social justice).  Less than 24 hours later, Baltimore Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, threw the book at the police officers involved, indicting them on every charge they could think of.

The justice system is thereby ignored, and the individual rights of these men are sacrificed, for the good of society as a whole.  It does not matter if these men, these police officers, were guilty or innocent.  Their liberties are sacrificed for the good of the whole.

And it's obvious these charges were made based on social justice, because the legal system was not followed.  For Ferguson, Michael Brown was shot on August 9, 2014.  A grand jury took 108 days to review the case before returning a no indictment.  Eric Garner died on July 17, 2014, and a grand jury took 140 days to get a ruling against indicting. Freddie Gray died April 19, 2015, and he was indicted by Mayor Mosby without even consulting a grand jury, in less than 24 hours after receiving police department investigation results.

Is this justice? Or social justice?  Justice means the system of laws is followed to assure individual rights are not violated.  Social justice means personal rights take a back seat to good of society.

To me this system of social justice doesn't even sound good on the surface.  Yet because social justice sounds good on the surface, many people fall for it.

Further reading:

• Glenn Beck: What is social justice?

Is Pope Francis A Socialist?

The pope says that if you do not give some of what you need, then you are not faithful. If you do not give up some of the money you need, you are not being charitable.  If you are not living like the poor, you are not charitable.  If you are not equal to everyone else, you are not faithful.  If you are not socialist, you are not faithful.  If you are not faithful, you will not living like Jesus.  If you are not living like Jesus, you are not getting to heaven?

Is that not what he is saying?

In other words, he is saying, or so it would seem, that you either need to be poor, or you are not faithful. Seriously, this is what he said. Here, listen to his own words as reported by the  National Catholic Reporter:

Focusing on poverty and sacrificing for the poor are the heart of the Gospel, not signs of Furthermore, if Christians don't dig deep and generously open up their wallets, they do not have 'genuine faith.'

Essentially what he is saying here is that, if you do not open your wallets to the poor, you cannot be faithful. He is saying that you must support big government programs or you are not faithful. So, essentially he is saying that conservatives, like you and me, cannot be faithful.  That is a stretch, to say the least.

The article went further.

He said people often hear, "Oh, this priest speaks about poverty too much, this bishop talks about poverty, this Christian, this sister talk about poverty. Well, they're a bit communist, aren't they?  But "poverty is precisely at the heart of the Gospel. If we were to remove poverty from the Gospel, people would understand nothing about Jesus' message," he said, according to Vatican Radio.Being fully Christian means being rich in spirit, faith, the Word, wisdom and zeal -- things that Jesus has taught and offered all people, he said. Make sure, however, that this huge amount of "wealth in the heart" also impacts the wallet, he said, because "when the faith doesn't reach your pockets, it is not a genuine faith." Pope Francis said the "theology of poverty" is based on the fact that Jesus -- in his divine richness -- became poor; he lowered himself and sacrificed himself to save humanity. The beatitude "Blessed are the poor in spirit" means "letting oneself be enriched by the poverty of Christ and not wanting to be rich with those riches that are not from Christ," he said. Christian giving goes beyond plain charity, which is good, but isn't the "Christian poverty" believers are called to embrace, he said. "Christian poverty is: I give to the poor what is mine, not the excess, but also what is necessary" for one's own well-being. Christians do this because they know that sacrificing in such a way enriches them, he said. "And why does the poor person enrich me? Because Jesus said that he himself is in the poor."  When people strip themselves of the material, "Jesus works within" them and they are enriched; when people give to the poor, Jesus is also working in the poor, "in order to enrich me when I do this," the pope said.

This pretty much defines socialism to a tee.  Socialism means that you take from the rich and give to the poor. It's using the IRS to force people to give to the poor.  The pope is calling this charity. Although, it's not charity, it's welfare; it's socialism; it's communism.

But the pope is saying that Jesus supported communism.  He is saying that you cannot just give your disposable income to charity, you have to give some of what you need. In other words, he is saying that all of us must live in poverty; we must all be poor.

And, if you think of it, that's essentially what socialism is.  The goal of socialism or liberalism or progresivism or whatever you want to call it is to create a euphoric world where everyone makes the same amount of money; we are all equal.

And, if everyone were equal, if there were not rich people, by default, would not that mean that we are all poor.  In essence, socialism is the government Jesus preached, as socialism means that we are all equally poor.

Is this what the pope is implying.  Is this why he hates capitalism?  Is this why the left refers to anyone who lives above their means as evil, greedy, rich people? It would seem so.  And so, I think we are safe to say that our pope, Pope Francis, is indeed a socialist.

Further reading:

• Articulating ideas: What is charity?
• Articulating ideas:  Pope wrong about capitalism
• Breitbart.com: John Kasich Rips ObamaCare Critics For Not Understanding the Bible
• National Catholic Reporter: Concern for poor sign of Gospel, not red flag communism

Myth Buster: Welfare is charity

There is little doubt that the Bible teaches one to give freely to those in need. I have written about it on this blog, and it's called charity. However, there are political and religious figures of late who seem to confuse charity with welfare.

The most recent to fall victim to this was Ohio governor and republican presidential candidate John Kasich. He has been a supporter of Obamacare, and has even allowed for Obamacare welfare expansion in Ohio. 

On October 10, 2015, at an appearance before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, he responded to his critics:

"Look at Medicaid expansion. Do you know how many people are yelling at me? I go out to events where people yell at me. You know what I tell 'em? ... I say, there's a book. It's got a new part and an old part; they put it together, it's a remarkable book. If you don't have one, I'll buy you one. It talks about how we treat the poor. Sometimes you just have to lead."

So, essentially he said that welfare is charity. He is saying that you should be willing to give of your well earned money to the government because the government is doing with your money what the Bible preaches, and that is to give it to those in need.

But he is wrong. To understand this, let's look at a couple definitions.

• Charity:  Giving freely to those in need some of what you have. 
• Welfare. The government mandating that you give some of what you earn to others in need.

You see, charity is when you give by your own choice, and welfare is you give because you have to. So welfare, by definition, is not charity. 

Still, there are those, like Kasich, who want you to think welfare is charity. This is how they get large corporations to agree to support big government programs.  This is how get people who work so hard for their money to support the expansion of government.

This is how you get 52% of Catholics to support characters like Bernie Sanders.

Look, Pope Francis has used the myth that charity is welfare to justify his calls in support of government regulations to prevent man made global warming and to help the poor. In response to critics, he said, via the National Catholic Reporter, that...

Focusing on poverty and sacrificing for the poor are the heart of the Gospel, not signs of communism.

The truth is, when God created Israel, he did not tell the people to give money to the Romans. What he did was tell people to leave some of their crops so that the hungry could work to get them. The Bible preached we should help the poor, but that the poor should work for what they get.  In other words, the Bible preached that if you don't work you do not eat.

In this way, the Bible preached charity, not welfare. 

Further reading:

• Articulating ideas: What is charity?
• Articulating ideas:  Pope wrong about capitalism
• Breitbart.com: John Kasich Rips ObamaCare Critics For Not Understanding the Bible
• National Catholic Reporter: Concern for poor sign of Gospel, not red flag communism

Myth Buster: All rich people, corporations, nations are greedy

Quite often my liberal friends say things like, "Donald Trump is greedy," "It's a rich, greedy corporation." They refer to any rich person as greedy, not just Trump.  Any corporation that makes money is greedy, such as, "Greedy pharmaceuticals" set their prices too high. I think It's frustrating to me when they say stuff like this, but I think I understand why they do: it's based on a fallacy.

It almost seems as if liberals hate success, as they are often trying to punish people who succeed. They falsely believe, that left to their own devices, people will not give to charity; they will not help the poor. I attempted to allay this myth in my post, "Pope Francis Wrong About Capitalism."  Capitalism creates opportunities, and people under capitalistic societies donate more to charity than people under any other form of government.

I think the big misconception, the big fallacy of progressives, is that they believe there is only so much money in the world, and if one person, or one corporation, becomes wealthy, that this comes at the expense of everyone else, especially the poor.  In other words, if one person makes a million dollars, this is a million dollars that will not help the poor; in fact, it hurts the poor.  That's why they refer to rich people like Donald Trump as greedy and selfish.

The truth is that there is plenty of money to go around so that everyone can get rich.  This what Trump is saying when he says, "I'm rich, and I will make you rich too."  There is no shortage of money in the world. Rather than trashing people like Trump who succeed, we ought to put them up on a pedestal with an inscription under saying, "You can be like Trump: You can get rich too."

That's the whole point of American exceptionalism.  It's not that we are better than other nations, it's that, before American, 90% of people lived in poverty. America -- more specifically: American Exceptionalism -- has made it so that anyone can rise up to be as rich as kings or queens or totalitarian leaders. This was never possible before America.

People like Trump are a rare breed who sacrifice all to succeed.  Trump had to sacrifice years and money on educating himself, and he had to take great risks to succeed.  In fact, he was so focussed on succeeding that he risked his first marriage to Ivana. I don't mean to ramp up Trump here, I'm just trying to give an example of how getting rich is not bad.  Trump got rich by creating hundreds if not thousands of jobs. As Trump rose to the top he took many people with him.

That's the whole purpose of unfettered capitalism or capitalism.  Some call it supply side economics.  As Jack Kemp used to say, "A rising tide lifts all ships."  During the 1980s, when regulations and taxes were cut, people of every class rose to a higher class. In fact, when regulations, taxes, and government programs were cut in the 1920s, there was no unemployment (it was 2%, while most economists consider 4.5% no unemployment as there will always be people between jobs).

It's not only just individuals and corporations that are greedy, it's America. There are literally people, even within our own country, who think this is unfair; it's unfair that Americans are so rich, because they get rich at the expense of every other nation. They think we are the reason other nations are poor because we absorb all the money in the world.  They think it's not fair that we have all the wealth and no one else does.

What they fail to see is that 99.9% of the world was poor prior to America. Before America, there was no place in the world you could go to be free; there was no place in the world where you could worship what are religion you wanted; there was no place in the world you could go to take an idea you had and prosper.

Again, what they should do is put America on a pedestal and teach rulers of other nations how to accomplish what America has accomplished. Instead of saying Americans are greedy, they ought to ask: What made America so great? What made Americans so prosperous? Why does everyone want to go to America? How can I do that for my country?

Let me word this another way. People who really care for the poor, for the little guy, should want the little guy to have an improved life: more contentment, more happiness, more stuff.  If this is true, then they should want to emulate the United States. You certainly wouldn't want to tear it down.  If you truly cared about the poor, you would create a nation just like the United States.  You wouldn't teach them that America is selfish and greedy and rich at the expense of everyone else.

America is about freedom, liberty, and prosperity.  So if you want people to succeed, you should teach American principles, not deride them. Because before America there was no prosperity. The people who teach that America is rich and greedy try to make things fair by punishing and penalizing people at the top. Then when those people are gone, there are no jobs. This is substituted for government checks, which will disappear when the U.S. is gone. Then everyone will be equally poor. That is the utopia they seek -- fairness, equality of poverty.

It doesn't make sense. Why try to destroy the one beacon of hope, the one shining city on a hill, where every person has an equal opportunity to succeed.  Why destroy that by telling people that those people are greedy in their materialism? Why, if you truly love the poor and want to help them, wouldn't you teach them how to get it too? Why not teach your people how to prosper?

You have a special place, you want it to stay special, you better learn how it got special. Otherwise, you are going to have people want to destroy it, and you won't have a reason to stop them. Or, if someone were to come into our nation (as progressives have) and try to tear it down one piece at a time, and you didn't know why it was great in the first place, you might just stand by and let it happen.  In fact, you might even be willing to give up your liberties for the cause. You might be convinced to do just that.

And that's what's wrong with our country today, is our schools are not teaching the answers to these questions, so kids are growing up in the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, and yet they think it has always been this way. They think people were always free. They don't understand that 99.9% of people lived under totalitarian dictatorships or monarchies before the U.S. came about, and that freedom had to be fought for. They aren't taught this, so they don't feel the need to protect and defend it against the onslaught of liberalism.

That's why they can so easily be taught that anyone who succeeds in life is greedy and selfish; that anyone who gets rich does so at the expense of the poor; that capitalism breeds poverty. When the truth is that everyone was poor before the Unisted States, and capitalism creates prosperity not poverty.

Anyway, America is special, and to keep it special we must know how we got to where we are.  Once we know that, it will be easy to see how capitalism creates jobs; capitalism creates prosperity.  Capitalism makes life better for the poor, not worse.  If you really, truly love the poor, then you will tell them that they can have it too if they want.  And that's why Trump says, "I am rich, and I want to make you rich too."

Obtaining a colorblind society for everyone

I live in a colorblind society. That means that where I live you don't notice people's race. It doesn't matter. It doesn't trigger things. There is no automatic bias or prejudice. When people are hired, it's "assumed" they were hired on merit, and are treated as just another peer.

In a colorblind society, people are treated according to how they treat you, or how good they perform their work. They are treated accordingly, with race not even being a factor.

That's not to say racism doesn't exist in the minds of some of my peers, although if it exists I do not see it.  If any of my peers are racist, they do not let it show.  And that's also not to say racism doesn't exist to a greater extend in other areas of the world, because Lord knows it does.

That said, there are some who just assume people are racist without just cause.  For instance, I have been called a racist just because of my conservative views, and because I'm a Christian.  Some say I'm a racist on the grounds that I usually vote republican.

To them I say that it is conservatism that has championed for a colorblind society, while liberals have championed for treating different groups of people differently.  Republicans want to create an environment where every person has an opportunity to rise up, while democrats only want certain groups to rise up.  Democrats have created entitlements that have trapped many black people in poverty (and trapped them in a political party), and 30 years of democrat control of Detroit, New York, California, and Baltimore has pretty much proved this.

You have groups of people sitting around and waiting for any excuse to riot. They broke out in Ferguson based on the myth of "Stop!  Don't Shoot!"  Now they started a riot in Baltimore because a black man died under police custody, although we still don't know why he died.

Yet these groups of people just assume it was racism, while most of the reasons for the riots are written off as mere myths.  For instance, half of the city council in Baltimore consists of blacks, and half of the police force consists of blacks, and the Mayor of Baltimore is black and so too is the Baltimore police chief.

Speaking of the Mayor of Baltimore, her name is Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.  In response to the race riots she said:

I've made it very clear that I, um, work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their, uh, right to free speech. It's a very delicate balancing act because while we, uh, try to make that they were protected from the cars and the other, y'know, things that were going on. We also gave those who wished to destroy, space to do that as well.

She did call a state of emergency and did call in the national guard, yet why in the world would she give rioters space to destroy things?  That's just crazy.  She didn't make effort to try to stop them, just gave them space to destroy.

Obama has blamed the riots on a republican Congress not willing to invest in urban cities, although Obama's party had complete control of Congress for more than a few years and he didn't solve the problems of urban cities.  Likewise, every single member of the Baltimore Council is a democrat, so there is plenty of government involvement.  This proves that government is not the solution.  In fact, it proves that government is the antithesis of the solution.

You see, you have to realize that it was republicans who worked hard to free the slaves, while democrats opposed it. It was republicans who worked hard to get the Civil Rights Act passed in 1962, while democrats opposed it.  It was republicans by opposed affirmative action so that black people could be hired based on the merit of their knowledge, and the content of their skills, and not by the color of their skin, while democrats opposed it.

While the people on the left say they want a colorblind society, they don't want it.  What they want is for people to see people by the color of their skin, to trap them in poverty, and to use them as pawns in their efforts to get elected over and over again. And their strategy has worked, as a stunning majority of blacks continue to vote democrat.

Yet has this solved any of their problems.  Democrats started the war on poverty in the 1960s, and after 50 years of spending money to help end poverty, there are more people in poverty today as there were then.
If you add all the money spend on the War on Poverty, Great Society, and food stamps, $22 trillion worth of tax dollars* have been spend on ending poverty, and yet it still exists.  African-Americans are stuck in inner cities like Baltimore and Detroit, and they see no way out.

So then Obama was elected, and they started salivating. There must have been so much hope among the African-American community when Obama was elected.  Yet now that Obama has had six years to work his magic, nothing has improved for African-Americans, unless you consider more on food stamps, and more on welfare, as progress.  And many of these African-Americans are not working, and it's for this reason they have time for peaceful protests that turn into riots.  People who are working have better things to do that loot and riot.

Yet conservatives don't measure progress by how how many people are on the government dole, they measure it by how many are able to get off the government dole and find success on their own. Conservatives measure success by how many African-Americans are able to get jobs that pay well so they can choose where they want to live, and choose the schools their kids go to, and so on and so forth.

So now African-Americans have an African American president who was supposed to end racism in America, he was supposed to make things better for them, and he's made it worse. Yet rather than blaming him and his political views, they blame republicans.  Rather than blaming failed government programs, they blame capitalism.

These groups of people waiting for excuses to riot are angrier than ever, and they have everything they ever wanted.  They have complete democrat control of their city, and they have Obama.  Yet they are angrier than ever.  This is more proof that government is not the solution.

It's time for African-Americans to stop voting for people who say they have empathy for them, and create programs that the hard working people in this country are forced to pay for even though they know they won't work.  It's time to stop voting for people who take from the rich to give to the needy.  Instead of calling the rich greedy and punishing them with high taxes, we need to teach people to become rich.  Instead of creating programs to trap people in poverty, we need to get them out of the way so that there are no obstacles in the road to succeeding in life.

The time is now for blacks to start voting for republican solutions to establish the colorblind society I live in for everyone.  It's time to elect people who yearn to create an economic environment where everyone can rise into a better economic status. It's time to elect people who offer better solutions that the same ones that keep failing.

*That $22 trillion is three times more than all the wars in this country, and yet democrats continue to say we need to cut the defense budget to gain control of the out of control national debt.

Further reading:

• Baltimore riots explode left race myths
• Republican Congress won't invest in urban communities
• Is it time for Black Americans to vote republican?
• The war on poverty after 50 years
• Not news: Baltimore mayor says 'protesters' who wish to can have 'space to destroy'

Liberalism is advanced one crisis at a time

Sometimes I wonder if the media, which by the way polls show votes by a 8-1 margin for democrats and liberals, simply creates stories to scare people.  They do this, I imagine, because fear sells.  It sells news, and it sells liberalism.

Well, if you think I'm nuts on this, allow me to give you a few examples.  Consider the war on poverty. Do you think it's called a "war" by coincidence.  Poverty in the U.S. was not any worse during the 1960s than it ever has been, but they trumped it up as a crisis for political gain.  Why? Because where there is a crisis there is a solution.  Where there is a solution, there is political gain to be made.

So democrats raised taxes to wage their war on poverty. They used this "crisis" as an excuse to get their agenda passed. Yet, as with most liberal policies, they create little train wrecks that cannot be fixed; they make things worse.  If you count the number of people in poverty after 50 years of the liberal war on poverty, there are more people in poverty today than when the so called war began.

Climate change is another crisis the democrats trumped up in order to sell their liberal agenda.  The media reports stories on a daily basis that try to blame every disaster on climate change.  The recent strain of Ebola in Africa is a perfect example.

You now have people trumping up fear that this disease will quickly spread across the United States, when there is no evidence that this will ever happen.  Yet they are now also blaming this spread, which hasn't happened, on man-made climate change.  Consider this article: "California Governor Jerry Brown: Climate Change Will Drive Millions of People North Over the Border."

Hurricane season is now upon us, and we are often taken to reporters sitting on the beach along the Atlantic coast with video feed of calm waters.  They are sitting their with their cameras so they can be the first to report the damage from a hurricane that hasn't even come into existence yet.

Or how about this trumped up headline: "Climate Change May Increase the Number of Hawaiian Hurricanes."  People buy into this, even though there is record cold weather all over the world. The winter of 2014 was perhaps the coldest since 1978, and the summer of 2014 also being one of the coolest ever.

Every time there is a heat wave in January democrats, the media, blame it on climate change. Of course, every time there is a cold front they blame that on climate change also.  Folks, there is no such thing as man-made climate change. Take care of the planet because it's the right thing to do, but don't do it out of fear. Fear results results in panic, and panic results in irrational decision making.  A perfect example of such an irrational result is regulations and tax hikes that destroy economies at the expense of some stupid pumped up myth that humans are destroying the planet.

School shootings are another perfect example.  It's a tragedy every time one occurs.  Yet it's not any worse today than it ever has.  The only reason it seems worse is because the media is reporting on every one, and even salivating when they occur.  They use these tragedies to advance their agenda, because every disaster needs a liberal solution.  Of course the solution in this case is anti-gun laws.

Or how about the reporting of every death in Iraq during the Iraq War.  They saw the war as republican politics, and they saw the U.S. as the bad guys in that war.  So every time a soldier died they had to remind us of this in order to make George Bush look like a terrible president and the War America's fault.  Yet what they don't say is that over 40,000 people died just preparing for D-Day.  I'm not trying to downplay military deaths, I'm just saying that the democrats trump of any crisis for political gain.

Just think of the words of Rham Emanuel as he said, "Every crises needs a solution."  What he really means is a liberal solution, as the only way to advance the liberal agenda is by one crisis at a time.

Don't agree. Well, consider the Great Depression.  Here we had more than half the nation unemployed, and so FDR took advantage of this real crisis to increase the scope of government.  Take the Great recession too, as Obama took advantage of it to increase, once again, the scope of government.

Pope redefines "charity" to include Marxism

In order to classify as tax-free organizations, religious organizations must not endorse any political positions.  Their sole purpose is "supposed" to be the charity, either financial or supportive. Yet the Pope has found a way around this.

The strategy of the Vatican is to redefine the meaning of the term "charity." They basically expand it to include "redistribution of wealth."  If you take from the rich and give it to the poor, what you are in essence doing is encouraging governments to increase charity for the poor.

Pope Francis, of Friday, May 9, 2014, called for governments to redistribute wealth to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the 'economy of exclusion' that is taking hold today.

In essence, the Pope is saying that the Vatican is a country, and it is, therefore, encouraging the United States to use its national influence to encourage other nations to redistribute wealth.  In other words, he is endorsing ne or another form of fascism --Marxism, Communism, socialism, progressivism or liberalism -- from the pulpit.

The pope said getting to the root cause of poverty "involves challenging all forms of injustices and resisting the economy of exclusion, the throwaway culture and the culture of death which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted."

The truth is, the goal of all these 'isms is to make everyone equal, and the only way to make everyone equal is to make everyone poor. This is because, if you have no rich people, you have no jobs.  If you have no jobs you have no opportunity to become rich. If the incentive to become rich is taken away, people lose their creative ambitions.

This is why an Austrian governmental style, often called capitalism, or trickle down economics, is the best form of government.  It encourages individualism as opposed to statism, and provides an equal opportunity to succeed, but not equal results.  The truth is, taking from those who have and giving it to those who have not is not charity, it's stealing.

Progressives succeeded in changing a republic into a democracy

In order for the progressive movement to be a success,
progressives needed to take power away from the individual.

The founders of the United States wanted to form a republic rather than a democracy because they knew that democracies can lead to chaos, and they didn't want the new nation to be chaotic. The founders knew that democracies never work.

W. Cleon Skousen, in his book, "The 5000 year leap: Principles of Freedom 101," reminds us of this.  He said:

"There are many reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislature or decision making processes of government. This has never worked because the people become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass-participation in the government of the city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny."

The authors note that while a democracy becomes "increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows," a republic "governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely."

James Madison, one of the main authors of the Constitution, knew the limits of a democracy.  A republic, he said...

...derives its power directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.  It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.

The United States was a republic, and considered as such, until the progressive movement of the early 1900s. Early proponents of the progressive movement realized there were essentially two things standing in the way of moving forth their agenda: republicanism and the U.S. Constitution.  They aimed to tackle both these issues with a public relations campaign, or by twisting facts.

To understand this, we must first understand the history of the progressive movement.  Progressives believe that an ideal, or perfect, or Euphoric, world is possible. This is a world where there where every person has an equal share of the profits, where everyone who wants a job has one, and where everyone has health insurance.  We must realize that this is a dream.

To move America forward to this dream world laws must be made, and the people responsible for making these laws are experts in Washington.  Of course, these experts must all be progressives. These experts must make laws for the good of society, or for the good of all, or for the collective.  

The gist of this agenda is the assumption that people, as individuals, are not capable, or not willing, to do what is necessary to move forth the agenda. People, left to their own devices, are selfish, and will not give to charity and will not share the wealth.  So they must be forced.  

So you can see that this would not be popular in an republican America where individualism was taught.  So, these progressives started a campaign to change this view.  

Since a republican government limited their ability to push forth their agenda, the term "republic" was taken hostage.  It was at this time people, mainly progressives, started referring to their progressive programs as liberal, and their progressive programs as democratic.  They did this in order to make them sound more appealing.  They would say things like "this is for the good of society," or "for your own good."

For example, in 1921 socialists in the United States started calling themselves, "The League for Industrial Democracy." It has a much more appealing taste to Americans, and appeared much more likely to suck people in. 

During WWII, Woodrow Wilson added to the confusion when he hailed

"Make the world safe for Democracy."

This strategy worked.  Teachers and journalists prove the effects of this campaign by teaching that America is a democracy.  Even George W. Bush fell victim to this when he hailed that he was encouraging Muslim nations to become democracies.  

The second effort was to make the term socialism appealing withing the borders of the United States.  In order to to this they used the name "progressive" instead of "socialism."  Progressive was a much more appealing term.  Later, as this term lost its appeal, the name was changed to liberal.

Prior to the progressive movement the term liberty referred to the exercise of human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the rights of other people.  Liberal, therefore, which dates from the Middle Ages to about the 1930s, referred to freeing society from the shackles of the state.

In 1930 it was abducted by the progressives/liberals and now means "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." The term made it possible for the progressives to convince people that is was okay to change, or in some cases ignore, the laws of this nation, including the Constitution, in order to push forth their agenda.  

Evidence of the success of this campaign is seen in every day life in America. The influence of government has dangerously expanded far greater than the founding fathers ever envisioned, nearly to the point that presidents such as FDR and Obama have gained near king-like powers.  

Bottom line:  A successful push to destabilizing the meaning of the terms "republic" and "liberal" allowed progressives (i.e. socialists, liberals) to convince Americans to ignore or change the Constitution, thus allowing them to push forth their agenda. 

The truth about socialism

I have been telling my friends for years that there is no difference between liberalism, socialism, Marxism, fascism, communism, and totalitarianism. My liberal friends beg to differ, saying there is a significant difference.

Yet the bottom line is that they believe that it is possible to create a euphoric, or perfect, world where everyone has a job, and everyone has food on the table, and everyone has healthcare.

In order to obtain this euphoria, they believe that people, left to their own devices, are not smart enough, or unwilling enough, to make the appropriate decisions on their own.  For this reason, their experts have to make these decisions for us, or at least to nudge us in the right direction.

Likewise, in order to fund this their society, they believe that every person should make equal wages.  They believe that there is only so much money to go around, so it's their job to take from the well off and re-distribute this money to the not so well off.  In this way, liberals, Marxists, fascists, communists, and totalitarians all believe in the same thing, and are all the same.

While called by various names in order to hide its true identity, socialism is socialism no matter what. Don't let them tell you otherwise.

Capitalism creates success, progressivism creates chaos

Wherever liberalism has been tried it has failed. On the other hand, wherever conservatism has been tried it has succeeded. In fact, conservatism has made life so great in America that many people take it for granted; they have little concept of how hard life was before it existed.

By the way, the liberal movement in the U.S. used to be called the progressive movement. Of course a name is just a name. They'd probably use Communism or Socialism if those names weren't already tarnished. For the sake of simplicity, we'll simply refer to them all as progressives.

On a similar note, conservatism is the same as capitalism. So, for the sake of simplicity, we'll just refer to it as capitalism. So we have capitalism verses progressivism.

Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, gave us the following quote: 

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."

I love that quote.   It explains why countries that embrace capitalism prosper, because people have freedom and liberty.  It explains why countries that embrace progressivism fail, because no one can get anywhere.

In progressive nations you have to be a member of the party, and the party steals and loots what you earn in order to redistribute it.  By taking your money, you become imprisoned in the system.  You are forced to stay in poverty.  In order to gain anything you are forced to steal and loot, just as the system does to you.

Capitalism frees people to provide services and products people are willing to pay for, and if you hit it big, you get really wealthy. If you don't hit it big but do reasonably well, you'll do reasonably well.  Countries that exist under unfettered capitalism prosper, and examples of this are the Harding/ Coolidge economy of the 1920s, the Kennedy economy of the 1960s, the Reagan economy of the 1980s, the W. Bush economy of the 2000s, and the current Chinese economy.

Capitalism is made up of people who are forever dreaming about coming up with ways to make life better. Capitalism is about improving the quality of life, improving the standard of living for as many people as possible.

Progressives try to make everyone the same, and when everyone is the same, you have no wealthy people.  When you have no wealthy people, you have no incentive to improve your lot in life.

Lacking the opportunity to improve your life, people become lazy.  No new jobs are created, and therefore everyone is equally poor.  That's fine, because the goal of progressivism is equality for everyone.  In other words, progressivism creates poverty.  Poverty creates desperation, and desperate people loot and steal.  

Capitalists know it's impossible for everybody to be the same. It creates an environment for, if you are willing to take risks, you may become wealthy. When you have people with money, they will take risks that create jobs. When people are working and making money, they are happy and content. When people are happy and content, they are not desperate and do not have a need to loot and steal.

Progressives create an environment that stakes one group of people against the other, and it is from here that class envy develops: the rich hate the poor who are stealing from them, and the poor think the rich are making money at their expense. The poor think it's unfair the rich have all that money, so they devise ways to steal it from the rich. So the government solves this problem by trying to create an idealist world where everyone is the same, and where they all make the same amount of money. But all this does is force people to steal and loot in order to survive.

Socialism is a never ending cycle.  They say they are doing it "for your own good."  They assume people are too stupid to make wise decisions with their money, so they devise ways to take it from you and spend it for you.  Yet since they are paying your bills, they believe they can tell you what you can eat so you can stay healthy.  They say they are doing this "for your own good," but it's really to keep their costs down.  

Progressivism sounds good to the people; it feels good.  But when it's put into place, all it does is create little train wrecks wherever it is instigated.  They take over healthcare so more people can have it, but in return healthcare gets worse. They take over economies to redistribute wealth, and all they do is create an environment where groups of people hate each other.  

Progressives never elevate the people at the bottom.  They always try to penalize the people at the top and take away from them and blame them for the inequities and the problems in society.

But it doesn't stop with economics. They go after what people say. You can't say things that hurt people's feelings, and you definitely can't judge people for bad behavior.  

They have to make sure that anything that creates human triumph is discredited, because that sends the wrong signal to a liberal or socialist or communist government. You can't have exceptions on the plus side.  You can't earn wealth while there are still people in poverty.  You simply can't.

They hate God, because God is the antithesis of their form of government.  God teaches freedom, liberty, personal choice, individualism, and conservatism. They can't have that; God sends the wrong signal to a liberal or socialist or communist government 

They also try to keep people uneducated and lie to people . They twist history to suit their own agenda.  They create medial fairness laws, and never allow conservative voices to be heard.  And, most important, they don't want their people to see how well people live in other nations, because that would make them want capitalism for themselves.  

That's why the Chinese Government controls the media and the Internet.  Once people see freedom their whole system will be defeated, it will crumble to the ground, so they keep people stupid by lying to them and preventing them from becoming educated. If a person learns too much he is thrown in prison or murdered. A good example of this is the Tienanmen Square masacre. 

In Russia, under the Soviet leadership, Russians were told how bad it was in America, and because they had no way of learning the truth, they believed it. People who became educated, or who learned how well Americans really had it, were murdered amid what the government would chime as a mass epidemic of disease.  They were able to mask the truth because there was no world media.

Some actually even credit, along with the arms movement, Hollywood for the fall of the Soviet Union. Hollywood showed the Soviets how well Americans had it under this thing called "capitalism." 

When there wasn't television Stalin could simply murder people and get away with it, but because he couldn't do that anymore, there was no way to stop Russians from watching TV and seeing what Hollywood offered.  Of course, when watching TV, they also saw American news, and were alerted of what was really going on in America; that Americans weren't evil and wicked, their own government was. So the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Another thing that helped Stalin's movement was the fact that the progressivess in the U.S. controlled the media, and so they were able ignore the failures of the same movement in Russia.  Yet advancements in technology made it so the media became worldwide, and so the modern media made it so Russian leaders could no longer hide the failures of communism, the progressive movement in Russia.

Progressive leaders can no longer kill to get their way.  They can no longer control the media to get their way.  So the only method left is to make it so people don't make much money.  If you take away their money you take away their freedom. They accomplish this by by taking from anyone who makes money and redistribute it to the poor.  

It's for this reason socialist/ progressive/ liberal leaders constantly attack the rich, and it's for this reason they encourage class warfare and envy for achievers.  They attack corporations, and they attack rich people (except rich people who donate to their causes like George Soros). 

Capitalists make it so people can make money serving other people. Serving means making iPhones, televisions, cable TV, Internet, fast food, medicine, cars, etc. It means easy access to food and other essentials of life.

In socialist nations the food is aplenty, but no one wants to harvest it, so the people go hungry.  Hungry people are forced to steal and loot in order to satisfy basic needs.  

When socialists see something needs to be done, the government has to force people to do it.  Because the government takes any money people make, no one wants to do it.  

In a capitalist society, when someone has an idea, a product or service that will benefit others, he he has incentive to make it work because he knows he will get to keep any money he makes, or donate it to charities of his choice.  

Capitalism allows people to harness creativity.  It encourages creativity. Creativity is the main source of productivity.  All the good in the world today, therefore, was caused by capitalism/ conservatism.  

Despite this, too many people are tricked into believing the cause of it all is government.  Yet all government does is take away prosperity.  All government does is destroy wealth.  The only time the government rewards you with wealth, the only time it lets you keep your money, is when you use it to support the cause. 

Capitalism is always evaluated against dreams. Progressives/ Socialists/ Liberals/ believe that, if you do as they say, they can create a Utopia.  Utopia is a dream. It's a fantasy where everything's perfect; where there's no pain; where there's no suffering; where everybody has whatever the socialists/ liberals/ progressives think is important today.  In their Utopia, in their dream world, everybody's got health care. Everybody has a house, has an electric car. It's a dream. It doesn't exist. It's an idealistic dream.  

Capitalism is hard, cold reality. There's no question it is by far and away the best economic organizing system of human beings there's ever been.

So capitalism, which is a proven, demonstrable, there hasn't been any other legitimate world superpower, economic and everything combined, except the United States of America. Although some people in America today, the progressives, the liberals, are trying to make it so America no longer is a superpower.  They think this will help them create their perfect world.

There have been wealthy societies before America, but very few people participated in that. The rest were slaves or common, ordinary, everyday nothings who made all the wealth possible but never shared in it. There's been wealthy places but there's never been a wealthy superpower.

The United States developed, fed, clothed, protected, defended, provided for, took care of disasters, the world over. No other country has ever been able to do that.

And yet there's this constant battle in this country. The United States is unfair, it's unjust, it's racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, it's immoral, it's run by white guys. None of that has ever been true.

But let me ask you a question. What else has a chance when evaluated against a fantasy or a dream? Let's say, for example, you have this fantasy of the perfect woman or man, and you really think she or he exists. I mean, every aspect of your dream, every aspect of your fantasy, you hold out for it. Guess what? Your life is going to be miserable because it doesn't exist.

Take any other fantasy, any other dream, any other figment of your imagination where there is perfection and then evaluate that against reality, and I guarantee you reality is gonna lose every time.

Capitalism is reality and it's got more to recommend it than any other way or system. But compared to the Utopian dreams of liberalism and socialism and communism, it is always going to come up short with the dreamers and the fantasizers. And when those people end up in power, like now, then you end up with real problems. And we have them. But we'll come out of it.

So capitalism, the very idea that created this superpower, is said to be a failure because it's evaluated against fantasies. There never has been a successful socialist country. There's never been a successful communist country.

So when progressives talk to the people, they always talk in terms of "what will happen" if we continue charging "forward." In fact, "Forward," was Obama's campaign slogan in 2012, the same slogan that was used by another famous progressive by the name of Mussolini.  It was also used by a famous evil progressive in Germany in the 1930s.

Anyway, they keep talking about how, if we continue to do what they say, we will eventually get to, move forward to, this Euphoric world they always talk about. But we keep doing what they say, keep being tricked into believing it, and all that happens is chaos.

Yet that doesn't matter.  Progressives continue saying things like, "The only reason progressive ideas have failed in the past is because of capitalism." But when they are in charge, when they get their way, they destroy everything they touch.

The bottom line is, no progressive nation has ever succeeded.  The only thing progressivism succeeds at is failing and creating chaos.

In fact, you can always tell when progressives are in charge because of the chaos they create.  While the progressive agenda aims for a euphoric world, the only euphoria ever seen is when conservatives are in charge.